(Adding to todays posting flurry. And I've still got more to go
I've been wanting this for a while. Just one of those dreams that you never hook onto. Though, I guess I want to make it a reality. However, it is doubtful that I'd do it alone, and further doubtful that anyone would join the effort. But, instead of being despondent, I decided to ask here, and maybe, just maybe, I'll be pleasantly suprised.
The idea is simple. A method to have logical arguments listed and archived, with branches for arguments and proofs, an area for the consensus of agreed upon ideas, and the ability to move forward without denying anyone the ability to go back. Hmm... that sounds complicated. But it isn't. It's really simple. Maybe I ought to explain the problem.
There are two types of reasoned judgement. That is, Feeling and Thinking. That, at least, is Jung's theory, and one that I so far agree with. Both types of judgement can be employed by anyone, but never simultaneously. Currently, I am interested in Thinking judgements. That is the cold, anylitical, critical, decisive judgements, that are as simple as "True" or "False". I would like to tackle Feeling judgements in the future, if only to have a better appreciation of its complexities.
The problem is in an argument, that many things can be forgotten as it progresses. Whether the facts, the meanings, or even the point. There may also be disagreement on whether earlier ideas were agreed to or not. Finally, the real thinkers like to go back in the middle of it all now and then, but the other person may not be interested. And what about working with one person so far, and letting someone else finish? Not really possible.
Years ago I used to argue online in a political chatroom on Geocities. I had fun there. Though, two ladies made a distinct impression on me. One, had a good reason to allow abortions before three months (which I agreed that the reasoning was solid, though I didn't agree to the results). The other had shared fact-finding conversations with me, in which she made sure I covered everything. The conversations were in email.
From this latter lady, I realized that email was the way to go. With a recorded record, and time to argue it out, the argument was good, and we never went off-track. We each had time to go through it all before we responded. It was one are my favorite experiences.
So, I figure, a website could be dedicated to that. That is, either to public disagreements, or even private ones where the people want a record.
I read a Jewish book written a few centuries ago on the different types of arguments, proofs, etc.. in the Talmud. It seemed simple. Though, the neat part was, that all types of arguments were classified into groups. I really like that. So, I figured the same could be done here. If a person was to argue a point, the exact point would have to be enumerated, with the exact form of arguement, and the ramifications of the argument. And then, people could agree with it being a problem, and respond.
This way, there is a record, and things can be built on top of previous discoveries, without denying the ability for anyone to return to the original arguements.
Well, that's the main idea. There is more to be said, but only if anyone is interested. I have the time, I just want a team to do it with. Anyone interested? For that matter, anyone have any ideas for it?